I Will Suffer Double Jeopardy If EFCC Tries Me Again – Mamman

Former Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, has asked the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to set aside the nine-count charge brought against him by the EFCC.

The former minister argued that he had already been tried and convicted by the Federal High Court for offences arising from the same transaction.

Before he was convicted by the Federal High Court, the EFCC had filed a separate charge against him alongside seven others on a nine-count charge bordering on obtaining by false pretence and related offences.

The charge in charge No. FCT/HC/CR/375/2025, the commission listed Mustapha Abubakar Bida, Joseph Omotayo Adewumi, Ben Nsikak; Stephen Ojo; Oladipo Adebowale; Micheal Achua and Ogunjobi Olusola as co-defendants.

Legal experts wondered why the co-defendants who held various key positions in the Mambilla-Zungero hydro-power project were not charged alongside the former minister before the Federal High Court in the first place.

In a motion marked M/8214/26, filed on 14 May 2026 Mamman is relying on Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, which protects citizens against double jeopardy.

The former minister is asking the court for two reliefs:

An order quashing the instant charge against him, having been previously tried and convicted by the Federal High Court, Abuja, in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Saleh Mamman, for offences arising from the same transaction and/or the same set of facts.

An order discharging and acquitting him on all counts relating to him in the charge.

Mamman listed the following grounds:

He is constitutionally entitled to fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy under Section 36(9) of the Constitution.

He has been arraigned before the FCT High Court with seven others on a nine-count charge.

He was tried and convicted on May 7, 2026 by the Federal High Court, Abuja, in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024, on facts substantially the same as those forming the basis of the current charge.

The offences alleged against him in the instant charge arise from the same transaction and/or set of facts for which he has already been tried and convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Subjecting him to another criminal trial on the same facts violates his constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In a 15-paragraph affidavit in support, Mohammed Ahmed, a member of the legal team that defended Mamman in the earlier trial before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, told the court that the allegations in the instant charge arise from the same transaction and set of facts for which the applicant was tried and convicted.

He added that no superior court has ordered a retrial in respect of the offences for which Mamman was convicted, and that the continued prosecution of the applicant on the present charge amounts to subjecting him to double jeopardy.

The motion was filed by Mamman’s counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN.

Meanwhile, the EFCC through it’s counsel, Mohammed objected to the granting of the motion and the urged the court to dismiss same.

Justice Maryann Anenih after hearing the motion fixed November 26 for ruling.